Introduction

For western cultures, the term "positive" derives from a Latin word signifying "settled
by arbitrary agreement" or imposed, rather than a natural
expression. The term "negative" derives from a Latin word signifying negation
or denial. The formal mathematical and scientific senses of both terms originated
in the 18th century. Philosophical use of both "positivism" and "negativism"
originated in the 19th centuries. It was only at the beginning of the 20th
century that "positive" was used in the psychological sense of "concentrating
on what is constructive and good" -- as with the corresponding sense of
"negative". The hard sciences have frequently deplored the tendency of other disciplines to mistakenly endeavour to mimic their formalism in the psycho-social domain.

The relation between such moral and ethical implications can therefore
be understood as relying, questionably, for some of their significance on the binary
formalism introduced
by science, notably though the work of mathematician Gottfried
Leibniz. His work was however strongly influenced by the ancient notation
used by the Chinese for the 64 hexagrams of the I
Ching, which he claimed demonstrated the universality
of the binary system. The I Ching however encodes a philosophy that
is at the heart of Chinese cultural beliefs and based on the dynamic balance
of opposites such as positive and negative. It provides a richer articulation
between opposites by exploring 64 possible combinations with which moral and
ethical connotations are associated -- thus extending connotations of "positive"
and "negative" (cf Discovering richer patterns of comprehension to reframe polarization, 1998).

Exhortations
and injunctions to "be positive" are a common feature
of some religious groups, in the development of selling techniques, in self-help
therapies, in work group development, and in living with potentially fatal
illnesses. These are seen as a means of avoiding or defeating negativity in
those different contexts [more].
Misguided justifications of negativity are a particular concern [more | more].
Recommendations may even be made to avoid negative people, especially those
framed as "losers" -- to reduce the possibility of being entrained
by their mindset.

Whilst there are numerous web references in support of being positive or avoiding
negativity, there are very few resources that challenge the uncritical judgemental
attitudes which evoke such injunctions. This is curious because the consequences
of "being judgemental" have long been a concern in many of the above
contexts. The implication is then that "being positive" is an absolute
good, and "being negative" is an absolute negative -- to the point
of being recognized as sinful by some religious groups.

Interpersonal games

Transactional analysis was founded on the recognition by psychiatrist Eric
Berne (Games People
Play: the psychology of human relationships, 1964) that individuals
frequently engage in psychological games with one another -- psychological theatricals
that are played over and over again. For Berne:

A game is an ongoing series of complementary ulterior transactions progressing
to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Descriptively, it is a recurring set
of transactions... with a concealed motivation... or gimmick.

A game can then be understood as a series of interactions (words, body language,
facial expressions, etc.) between two or more people that follow a predictable
pattern. The interactions ultimately progress to an outcome in which one individual
obtains a "payoff" or "goal." In most cases, the participants in the games are
unaware that they are "playing." One of the players, the "loser" tends
to end up feeling used and hopeless.

The question explored here is whether the exhortation to "Be Positive",
addressed by one person to another, constitutes the first move in such a game
-- in which the enjoiner seeks for themselves the "positive" outcome
of being the "winner" under the guise of promising positive outcome.
It is also possible that a second game, in Berne's terms, might be associated
with a reversal of the earlier title of this paper to read: Games People
Play: Being Negative and Avoiding the Positive. This would indeed be rated
as a more appropriate and significant challenge by some.

Denial of the negative

There is an increasing social orthodoxy of positive thinking that Karen
Armstrong (Look
on the dark side of life, Guardian, 21 February 2004), as author
of Buddha
(2001), sees as a route to spiritual and political disaster. Recognizing the
Buddha's isolation from the realities of life in his childhood palace, as an
extreme example of denial by his father, she argues that:

It is increasingly unacceptable to voice legitimate distress. If you lose
your job, become chronically ill, or fall prey to loneliness or depression,
you are likely to be told -- often abrasively -- to look on the bright side.
With unseemly haste, people rush to put an optimistic gloss on a disaster
or to suggest a solution that is patently unworkable. We seem to be cultivating
an intolerance of pain -- even our own....In our global world we can no longer
afford to edit out the uncomfortable spectacle of human misery....The pain
that we ignored in some parts has hardened to murderous rage.

Another example of an exploration of the moves in a transactional "game"
of enjoining others to be positive is that of Robert Treborlang (The
Totally Positive Mate, 2002). With respect to Australian society he
argues:

In this country, a nation not given to great political credos, the unanswerable
damning accusation from people invariably is: "You're being negative." Being
accused of negativity is like being denounced for selling your soul to the
devil in the Middle Ages. The fires of hell are sure to get you if society
doesn't grill you first. On the other hand, just like being on the side of
the angels, the highest social accolade anyone can receive is to be considered
"positive".

Treborlang asserts that when people accuse others of being negative, it should
be understood as a hint to "back off from whatever it is they don't want
to hear". The qualification "negative" is a designation applied when their
worldview is threatened, whereas "positive" is usually applied to themselves
to "disguise the fantasy they have of a given situation". The accusation
of "being negative" effectively indicates "do not bring facts
into my preferred understanding of reality". The injunction "be positive"
is an appeal to subscribe to a particular worldview -- or be considered highly
negative and retrograde for failing to do so.

The extent to which an exclusive focus on the positive should be considered irresponsible has been explored elsewhere (The Quest for the Socio-Economics of Non-Action, 1993) as a commentary on the arguments of Willis Harman (Rethinking the central institutions of modern society: science and business In: Futures, 25, 10, December 1993).

Significance of being positive?

Fundamentalists of the distant future may have the opportunity
to create a new negative-free universe
A 50,000 word book was written in 1939 without using the letter "e" in
the text
A piano could be created without the "black keys" on the keyboard
Are these suggesitive of the significance of being positiv and avoiding
ngativity?

Unchallenged dangers of positive thinking

The advocacy of positive thinking was a notable feature in early twentieth
century America. It was articulated and promoted through
a wide array of ministers and spiritual thinkers, who used the Bible and personal
anecdote to extol its creative power. One of the progenitors was Norman
Vincent Peale (The Power of Positive Thinking, 1952). Its soaring
optimism has been well formulated by Neville
Goddard: "It
is not what you want that you attract; you attract what you believe to be true."

Adolph Hitler. . .above all
persons, believed in the power of positive thinking (with himself of course
at the helm of the world's selfish, destructive destiny). He above all people
believed in the power of the selfish mind (tragically at the expense of millions
of others). He above all people refused to allow negative thoughts to cramp
his style. . . [more]

Members of the Bush administration have repeatedly chided journalists for failing
to focus on the positive aspects of America's role in Iraq. The consequence of
such positive thinking have been notably highlighted by journalists and commentators.
As a physician concerned with cancer, Jimmie
C. Holland (The Human Side
of Cancer, 2001) writes with concern on The
Tyranny of Positive Thinking and the unreasonable expectations it places
on people struggling with the disease -- to the point of believing they are dying
because they are not being positive enough.

Iraq disaster -- a direct consequence of positive
thinking by its architects?

The news is grim, but the president is "optimistic". The intelligence
is sobering, but he tosses aside "pessimistic predictions". His opponent
says he has "no credibility", but the president replies that it is his
rival who is "twisting in the wind".... Bush's campaign depends on the
containment of any contrary perception of reality. He must evade, deny
and suppress it. His true opponent is not his Democratic foe -- called
unpatriotic and the candidate of al-Qaida by the vice-president -- but
events. Bush's latest vision is his shield against them. He invokes the
power of positive thinking, as taught by Emile Coue, guru of autosuggestion
in the giddy 1920s, who urged mental improvement through constant repetition: "Every
day in every way I am getting better and better."

It was during this
era of illusion that T S Eliot wrote The Hollow Men:

Between the
idea
And the reality,
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the
Shadow.

Rumsfeld had become one of the chief engines of the
notion that insisting on a particular version of reality in Iraq would
somehow cause that version to be manifested. It was the power of positive
thinking, as applied to geopolitics, and by 2005 it had gone too far for
a slew of retired generals, who joined the call for Rumsfeld to resign

Vulnerability to disaster

From this perspective the question is how to warn of impending diaster without
being labelled as "negative" and enjoined to minimize the danger and
"be positive". Three avoidable disasters help to clarify the challenge:

Challenger disaster: NASA suffered a highly publicized disaster on
28 January 1986, when the space shuttle Challenger exploded, killing all seven
astronauts on board. The extensive analysis of the problem thereafter determined
that the engineers had endeavoured to report the nature of the problem (inadequate
sealing rings, called O-rings) to the NASA council responsible. They had however
been informed that negative feedback on such matters was both unwelcome and
inappropriate. A positive approach was required by NASA authorities to ensure
the planned launch and the desirable public relations coverage. Some of the
engineers were much sought out thereafter as speakers in management schools.
[more]

Avianca disaster: In 1990 an Avianca flight was in a holding
pattern in the New York area for 77 minutes awaiting clearance to land. Realizing
that the aircraft's fuel supply was dangerously low, the pilot informed the
control tower that it was nearly exhausted: "I think we need priority;
we're running out of fuel." Hearing the pilot's calm positive voice,
the controllers did not react and authorize an immediate landing. Fatally,
the pilot had not used the prescribed "negative" terms "emergency"
or "minimum fuel". Minutes later the aircraft crashed. An investigation
concluded that the pilot neglected to use the prescribed terms, and the controllers
had also failed to ask how much fuel remained, or to request clarification.

Baku-Ceyhan pipeline: The 1,000 mile BTC pipeline constructed by
a consortium led by BP used an unproven coating for 160,000 joints -- that
cracks when cold with the possibility of major environmental disaster from
oil spills. It is reported that BP had been informed of this problem by a
consultant in November 2002, but failed to pass on the information to the
international funding bodies -- sacking the consultant in January 2003. The
joints cracked in November 2003. [more
| more]

Tsunami disaster: A more dramatic example is that of the head of
the Thai meteorlogical office who was forced in 1998 to retire under a shadow
for having warned that the coast was dangerously vulnerable to the effects
of tsunami. He was accused of scaremongering and jeopardising the tourist
industry around the island of Phuket. After tens of thousands of deaths in
the tsunami of 2004, he was reinstated in 2005 -- as minister in charge of
the Thai disaster warning office.

The challenge of repressing the negative is only too evident in controversies
with regard to "whistleblowing". Groups and institutions attach
high value to repressing or concealing negative feedback that may call into
question their integrity and self esteem. John Ralston Saul (The Unconscious
Civilization, 1995) argues the point with a dramatic example:

Criticism is perhaps the citizen's primary werapon in the exercise of her
legitimacy. That is why, in this corporatist society, conformism, loyalty
and silence are so admired and rewarded; why criticism is so punished or
marginalized.... In one eloquent example which has recently come to light,
the executives of a major American tobacco company debated among themselves
at great length, in the 1960s, whether they should inform the U.S. Surgeon
General of the results of their own corporate research, which confirmed
the health hazards of smoking. They decided, eventually, to say nothing and
to stop work on a safer cigarette. After all, to develop a safer cigarette
would compromise their silence by suggesting the need for one. Instead, they
initiated a legal and public relations strategy of admitting nothing.

Clearly the world would never have been exposed to the scandal of Abu Ghraib
had it not been for whistleblowers. Those with secrets to hide would consider
it "positive" that exposure to such "negativity" should
be avoided. Those committed to "being positive" might well prefer
such information to be repressed as relatively insignificant in comparison with
the "positive" initiatives they purportedly made possible. Similar
dynamics are evident in relation to AIDS (notably in Africa), global warming,
and resource depletion for example.

Concrete situations

More immediate examples of the undesirability of a purely "positive"
approach are:

Physician / Surgeon: It is clearly not beneficial for a physician to focus
solely on that which is healthy in the patient, avoiding any reference to
that which is less healthy. If a patient has broken one leg, focusing in a
blinkered manner on the health of the other is no basis for any remedial measures
to the other. There are similar concerns if the positive framing by the surgeon
is in terms of the opportunity to experiment with a new surgical technique
and an untried prosthetic device -- irrespective of the larger interests of
the patient.

Plumber: If plumbing in a house is leaking at a particular place, focusing
on the many parts of the pipework that are not leaking does not lead to urgent
repairs on the part that is leaking

Firefighter: In the event of the fire, it is useful to have firemen who
focus on the challenge of extinguishing the fire, rather than concentrating
their attention solely on what has not yet been burnt -- or what might be
constructed in its place

Corresponding to the adage: "If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it"
is the adage: "Being able to understand that it is broke, is the first
step towards being able to fix it" -- a vital first step for members of
Alcoholic Anonymous.

A relevant attitude in the case of software developers has been named as "Positive
Negativity", especially given that the pleasure in the task comes from
satisfying a creative urge, which is positive. But the practice itself often
has to focus on the negative:

This is an attitude of mind that sees failure as success. You are a problem
solver, a fixer. Your ability to look on the black side to envisage problems
and exceptions and difficulties and objections is the key to your strength:
your ability to prevent and minimize the impact of what you foresee. [more]

However the point has been made by Hegel (Science of Logic) that: Evil
consists in being self-poised in opposition to the good; it is a positive negativity.

Testing the boundaries of "being positive"

[added in November 2006]

The following help to understand the degree of commitment to "positive thinking",
and its possible consequences:

When short of funds, should you (or your group) invest all you have in
gambling or lottery tickets? If not, why not? Is gambling not an expression
of positive thinking?

Is experiencing pain a failure of positive thinking? As a positive thinker,
when and why would you seek therapeutic assistance?

If you are "positive", what do you do with your "negativity"?
Or do you consider that one can exist without the other -- unlike God who
is seemingly obliged to accept the existence of a demonic force?

Is the following Bedouin advice an example of failure of positive thinking: Trust in Allah, but tether your camel? Do
you lock your car door?

Why did the positive thinking of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld
not ensure an unconditional welcome by the Iraqi population
-- and a quick adoptance of western democratic principles?

Why does positive thinking engender so much negativity -- as exemplified
by George Biush and Donald Rumsefeld in the case of Iraq -- in the interest
of promoting democratic values worldwide?

If even the expenditure of $400 billion failed to undermine the confidence
of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld in their positive assessment of the Iraq
venture, what financial risks do others take in seeking the advice of positive
thinkers?

Does thinking positively effectively eliminate one's "enemies"?
Would you encourage a good friend to walk in an urban no-go area which even
the police fear to visit?

Would there be any problems left in the world if everyone thought positively? How would they be detected?

Why are there not more positive thinkers working in the risky contexts
of conflict zones? Or are these to be viewed as positive phenomena rendering
any such presence superfluous?

If marriage is a mutual celebration of positive thinking, why are so
many advocates of positive thinking divorced? Does this indicate that there
are many conditions in which being positive is unsustainable?

Is positive thinking to be understood as presenting a favourable image
-- all "dressed up" instead of the "everday wear" required by normal circumstances?

Does the ability to think positively depend on avoidance of any exposure
to information that might render appropriate any other mode of thought? Does
this encourage secretiveness to avoid evoking negative responses?

Does being positive depend fundamentally for its viability and operational
effectiveness on engendering negativity beyond its information catchment
area?

If any sense of risk is to be understood as a failure of positive thinking,
would you act unquestioningly on the advice of a positive thinker? Would
you so advise a vulnerable person? A loved one?

Is a positive thinker to be expected to act responsibly -- when sensing
risk is effectively a failure of positive thinking?

How is deep commitment to positive thinking to be distinguished in practice
from psychopathology or sociopathology given the manner in which it defines
itself as beyond criticism?

Is positive thinking essentially value neutral in that conditions and actions
percevied by others as negative are framed as positively as those so perceived
by others?

How are the dynamics engendered by positive thinking to be distinguished
from those most criticized in the self-referential dynamics of cults, especially
around their leaders as examplars of such thinking?

For a positive thinker, under what conditions is doubt admissible given
that it exemplifies negativity? Without the capacity to doubt, can a positive
thinker engage in dialogue meaningful to others?

If arrogance epitomizes a form of positive thinking, why is positive thinking
not seen as inherently arrogant?

If learning involves the capacity to fail and learn from mistakes, to what
extent can a postive thinker learn if the possibility of mistakes is denied
or failure is reframed as success?

How does a positive thinker distinguish between a "positive attitude" in others and one that imposes a constraint on their positively preferred mode of action?

Under what circumstances does positive thinking allow for the possibility
of valuable negative or constraining feedback?

Is every disagreement a failure of positive thinking on the part of the other? Is there an element of negativity in this assessment?

Is strong disagreement between positive thinkers possible? Is that to
be understood as positive or negative?

If any of the above is to be framed by a positive thinker as "not being
positive", is the "not" an example of negativity?

Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations, 1953)
makes a much-cited point that "if a lion could talk, we could not understand
him".
The explanation is that language forms part of a larger "language-game"
outside which that language cannot be understood [more | more | more]. Since humans and lions don't
share language-games they cannot share language or understanding. Is being
"positive" a form of language-game that precludes any possibility of understanding
being "negative" -- whatever the negative "lionish" noise level? The reverse being equally true in such a binary frame.

Beyond the limitations of any such binary frame, as discussed below, the question is how to distinguish:

positive forms of "positive thinking"

negative forms of "positive thinking"

positive forms of "negative thinking"

negative forms of "negative thinking"

Within any one of these, the others may each appear to be inappropriate
(if they can even be distinguished) -- readily to be condemned as misguided
or worse. The challenge is to determine the conditions under which each may
be appropriate (and to be preferred) or inappropriate (and to be avoided).
The challenge is highlighted by misguided efforts to associate "positive" with
"good" and negative" with "bad". For a farmer "good weather" may or may not
mean "sun" -- as it does for picnickers. The "bad weather" of pickners may
be desperately needed rain for a farmer. On the other hand too much rain may also
be "bad". The assessment may depend on the season and crop cycle -- or the part of the world. The same
subtlety may be appropriate for "positive" and "negative" as discussed below.

Irresponsibility of positive thinking? Iraq as a "work of art"?

An American general in Baghdad called Iraq a "work
of art" in
progress yesterday in one of the most extraordinary attempts by the US
military leadership to put a positive spin on the worsening violence.
(Julian Borger, Iraq
a 'work of art in progress' says US general after 49 die, The
Guardian, 3 November 2006).
In response to criticism regarding progress in Iraq, following a month
in which a record number of people died, Major General William Caldwell,
the US chief military spokesman, argued that: "Every great work
of art goes through messy phases while it is in transition. A lump of
clay can become a sculpture. Blobs of paint become paintings which inspire."

Interrelating positive-negative hybrids

This table is effectively a complexification of the 4-fold checklist presented earlier, such that each of the items in that checklist is at one of the corners of the table above:.

positive forms of "positive thinking" corresponds to symbiosis (corresponding to be the essence of desirable win-win relationships)

negative forms of "positive thinking" corresponds to parasitism (namely "positive" for one and problematic for the other)

positive forms of "negative thinking" corresponds to predation (again "positive" for one and problematic for the other)

negative forms of "negative thinking" corresponds to synnecrosis (namely negative for both in the interaction)

But again it is vital to recognize that all such interactions are part of the systemic balance in sustainable systems as exemplified by ecosystems. Any simplistic effort to "eliminate" the predators in the "predation" process, for example, would naturally eliminate those at the top of the food chain, specifically human beings. [see further discussion in the accompanying paper].

The positive-negative debate often neglects indigenous discourses, presupposes
consensus when there may be none, shuts down nuanced debate, and ignores
the performative features of racial identity
(Valerie Smith, Representing Blackness: Issues in Film and Video,
University Press, 1997, Rutgers, pp. 3-4)

Systems management: value of both positive and negative
feedback

In terms of management cybernetics, a distinction is made between positive
and negative feedback. Both are required:

Negative feedback: This is a fom of feedback, during which a system
responds so as to reverse the direction of change. Since this process tends
to keep things constant, it is stabilizing and attempts to maintain homeostasis.
When a change of variable occurs within a stable negative feedback control
system, the system will attempt to establish equilibrium. [more]

Positive feedback: In this case the response of the system is to
change that variable even more in the same direction. This has a de-stabilizing
effect that, left unchecked, does not result in homeostasis. In some cases
(if not controlled by negative feedback), a positive feedback loop can run
out of control, and can result in the collapse of the system.[more]

Positive and negative do not mean or imply desirability in management of complex
systems. The negative feedback loop tends to slow down a process, while the
positive feedback loop tends to speed it up. Positive feedback is used in certain
situations where rapid change is desirable -- negative feedback to regulate
that change.

In the case of the NASA and Thai examples, the negative feedback process was
fatally inhibited. There may also be cases where positive feedback is inhibited,
undermining the capacity to change. Again both forms of feedback are required
to manage any change process.

It is in this context that the use of "news management" or "spin"
needs to be understood. News can be spun "positively" or "negatively"
-- hastening or delaying recognition of a challenge and the adequacy of any
response to it. Positive spin will tend to conceal the seriousness of a problem
or exaggerate the effectiveness of the response. Negative spin will tend to
exaggerate the seriousness of a problem or denigrate the adequacy of the response.

Dependence of system operation on contrasting modes

There are interesting examples of the dependence of healthy system functioning
on both "positive" and "negative" modes:

Electricity: Most electrical systems require a judicious interaction between
positive and negative -- exemplified by the paired wires in the wiring of
electrical installations. The technical management of this distinction is
fundamental to power generation and the operation of motors. It is fundamental
to operation of radio signals of any kind. It is normally ridiculous to consider
removing the "negative" wire from such an installation, especially
since in the alternating current mode the current cycles between "positive"
and "negative" (in contrast to the direct current mode).

Circadian rhythms: Many biological systems are dependent on the night /
day cycle. Any tendency to label "day" as "positive" (or
"good") and "night" as "negative" (or "bad"),
and to maximize one at the expense of the other, tends to have problematic
consequences.

Weather: There is a marked tendency to distinguish between "good"
weather and "bad" weather. However both forms have their place in
ecosystems. Any efforts to maximize good weather and to eliminate bad weather
would tend to have problematic consequences.

The case of the electrical convention regarding the "positive" versus
the "negative" form of electricity is important in that it illustrates
the arbitrary nature of the convention. Whether one is assumed to be positive
(and associated with the plus sign) and the other is thereby treated as negative
(and associated with the minus sign) is an arbitrary choice, although the
convention -- once made -- should be adhered to throughout the framework.
Thus in projecting
"positive" onto any framework, it may either be associated with a plus sign
or a minus sign.

A Technical Impossibility: Eliminate the Negative?

It is most curious that a world-renowned designer, architect and inventor
of many devices, and specialist in systems theory,
R Buckminster
Fuller should espouse the belief
that the "negative" could
be eliminated. Where does the "negative" get eliminated "to"
in any system dependent on recycling or redistribution of stresses?

I resolved never to attack or oppose undesirable socioeconomic phenomena,
but instead committed myself to evolving and cultivating tools that
would accomplish humanity's necessitous tasks in so much easier, more
pleasant, and more efficient ways that, without thiking about it, the
undesirable ways would be abandoned by society. (I liked the 1944 popular
song Accentuate
the Positive, Eliminate the Negative). [R Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path, 1981]

Is that how the engineers of the Challenger space shuttle were encouraged
to think in denying that they had a problem? Does "eliminate" then justify "with prejudice" as with Hiroshima and elsewhere? Given Fuller's pioneering focus on the management of resources
(Operating
Manual for Spaceship Earth, 1963/1971), is such thinking a basis for managing
the Earth's resources? As a pioneer in the recognition of recycling, Fuller held that wealth can be increased by recycling resources into newer, higher value products whose more technically sophisticated design requires less material. He recognized how important recycling would be as the human race grew and outstripped its resources. How then should "waste" be "eliminated" in order to enhance "wealth"?

***

Selection from many (appreciative) comments on "accentuate the positive":

Order vs disorder: Namely the range between a preference for fluidity,
muddle chaos, etc. and a preference for system, structure, conceptual clarity,
etc.

Static vs dynamic: Namely the range between a preference for the
changeless, eternal, etc. and a preference for movement, for explanation in
genetic and process terms, etc.

Continuity vs discreteness: Namely the range between a preference
for wholeness, unity, etc and a preference for discreteness, plurality, diversity,
etc.

Inner vs outer: Namely the range between a preference for being able
to project oneself into the objects of one's experience (to experience them
as one experiences oneself), and a preference for a relatively external, objective
relation to them.

Sharp focus vs soft focus: Namely the range between a preference
for clear, direct experience and a preference for threshold experiences, felt
to be saturated with more meaning than is immediately present.

This world vs other world: Namely the range between preference for
belief in the spatio-temporal world as self-explanatory and preference for
belief that it is not and can only be comprehended in terms of other frames.

Spontaneity vs process: Namely the range between a preference for
chance, freedom, accident, etc and a preference for explanations subject to
laws and definable processes.

It has been repeatedly asked to what extent the unfruitful
relationship between positive and negative in social situations has been widely
reinforced by classic media portrayals of "cowboys
and indians" and the incorporation of such dynamics into childrens games
(JoEllen Shively, Cowboys
and Indians: perceptions of western films among American Indians and Anglos. American
Sociological Review, 57, 1992, 6,
pp. 725-734). Does that dynamic reinforce any tendency to "accentuate the positive
and eliminate the negative" -- where the "positive" is necessarily "people like
us" who "share our values", and the "negative" are the unfamilar others? (cf
Media Awareness Network, The
Impact of Stereotyping on Young People, 2007). This concern has been
expressed with respect to Iraq, as noted by David
J. Morris (Playing
cowboys and Indians, 12 Nov, 2004): "The military's emphasis
on capturing Fallujah reveals a mind-set stuck in Western frontier mode".

Reductio ad absurdum?

The preoccupation with "being positive" is now such that sentences
and texts are assessed for the presence of negatives that should be excised
in order to make a "positive" impression -- notably in public relations
and image building. There are initiatives to eliminate negativity from educational
games [more].
This raises surreal issues of whether strategic initiatives should be based
on:

Total elimination of any negatives in any text, raising the question of
how problematic issues (a broken leg, a broken pipe) are to be acknowledged
(as with the NASA and Thai examples) -- or to what any remedial strategy should
be addressed

Positive speeches that eschew any use of negatives, possibly to the point
of censorship (or at least to pressures towards self-censorship)

Design of word processor software (as a marketable product) that would ensure
that negative forms cannot be inserted into a text (or a web page), or could
be signalled in the manner of grammar checkers

Avoidance of any reference to negative and problematic matters within organizations
-- developing "problem-free organizations". Whilst this might work
for some bodies offering recreational or celebratory services, it would undermine
the revenue generating capacity of bodies claiming to solve problems -- through
maintenance and repair, for example. This approach would be especially challenging
for institutions and groups seeking funding to respond to problems (litter,
alcoholism, crime, cancer, etc). In such cases it is unclear how such bodies
could successfully justify their budgetary requests if their strategies were
desgined to avoid response to any problem or negative condition. What would
UNICEF do, for example, if it did not address the problematic conditions of
children -- sell Christmas cards? As prime advocates of a "positive"
approach, why is it that religious institutions devote so much attention to
"negative" matters such as "evil"?

The mindset raises issues regarding the appropriateness of various "say
no" campaigns, often promoted by those committed to "being positive":

The dysfunctionality of concentrating efforts in response to problems in terms
of positive opportunities is illustrated by the classical tale of the person
who searched at night for lost car keys -- under a street light, when the keys
had been lost in the inconveniently unlit area beyond the reach of the light.
It is also illustrated by the famous example of the Emperor Nero fiddling while
Rome burns.

The classic argument in favour of a "positive" over a "negative"
approach is illustrated by the example of seeing "a glass as half full"
instead of seeing "a glass as half empty". This however fails to take
account of the phenomenon illustrated by the classic experiment of putting a
live frog into cold water on a stove and heating it gradually. At no point does
the frog react "negatively" to the environment by jumping out -- and
saving its life. It progressively adapts to the very slight increase in its
problematic condition -- without ever recognizing a threshold at which action
is required.

Trends towards these approaches are evident in the emergence of "good
news" networks as a means of avoiding exposure to "bad news".

Is it possible that the world is effectively shifting towards an approach to
communication that resembles that of the Japanese polite avoidance of a blunt
negative (cf K Ueda. Sixteen Ways of Saying 'No' in Japan, 1974)?

In the effort to cultivbate a positive "win-win" experience, and
avoid the negative experience of losing, particularly striking is the situation
in the USA documented by Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel of the American
Enterprise Institute (One Nation Under Therapy: how the helping culture is
eroding self-reliance, 2005) and reported in the Economist (7 May
2005):

...it is now perfectly normal to phase out comptetive sports to spare children
the trauma of losing, or to ban games of tag because the child who is chosen
to be "it" may suffer from "self-esteem issues". Ms Sommers
and Ms Satel point to the growing fashion for games in which children compete
only with themselves (such as juggling, unicycling or "manipulating wheelchairs").
[review
| review
| review]

Dangerous associations

Despite the neutral insights of management cybernetics, there are unfortunate
ways of attaching value associations to "positive" and "negative".
There is always the danger that the isomorphism between any polarities, as polarities,
would lead to value "leakage" and conflation. This has resulted in
confusion and has often been historically disastrous:

Male vs.Female: Thus men have been associated with the
"positive" and women with the "negative".

Good vs.Evil: In the case of the male-female distinction,
women have in this way been associated with "evil". This perspective
has been institutionalized in a variety of ways in religions and has undermined
any ability to articulate more fruitful relationships between male and female.
(cf George Lakoff. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
About the Mind, 1987). More generally the contrast between "positive
and "negative" may be associated with any "good" experience,
as opposed to a "bad" experience. As noted above, rain may thus
be framed as "bad" weather, resulting in a "negative"
experience.

Winning vs. Losing: Winning is naturally framed as "positive"
in contrast with "losing". By extension, "winners" may
be framed as "good" people in contrast with "losers".

White vs. Non-white: In some cultural contexts, associating
with "white people" may be framed as a positive experience, whereas
associating with "non whites". This distinction may then be confused
with good vs bad.

"White Knights" vs. "Dark Riders":
The epitome of "positive" initiative is exemplified by "White
Knights", typical of legends. These may be contrasted with those of the
"Dark Force", or more particularly as "Dark Riders". As
discussed elsewhere (The
"Dark Riders" of Social Change: a challenge for any Fellowship of
the Ring, 2002), the simplistic nature of this contrast would be
the basis for the most effective disguise for those of genuinely malevolent
intent.

Believers vs. Unbelievers (Infidels): For those of any
belief system, continuing belief in it is naturally framed as "positive",
possibly recognized as a "positive attitude" (as in many7 collective
initiatives). By contrast those who do not hold that belief, or cease to subscribe
to it, may well be perceived to have a dangerously "negative attitude".
The attitude of "infidels" may be further associated with "evil"
in order to justify the most extreme forms of sanction.

Agreement vs. Disagreement: Social relations are largely
determined by those who are "with us" -- who are in agreement with
us -- in contrast with those who are "against us", namely in disagreement
with us. Agreement is then seen as "positive", whereas disgreement
is necessarily "negative". The negative perception of disagreement,
as noted above, may then lead to major disasters.

Fortunately richer understandings of the relationship between positive and
negative are embodied in the dynamics between gods and goddesses in many mythologies.
The peculiar nature of the boundary between positive and negative is widely
explored in literature and drama.

It is fashionable to talk about blurring boundaries, but in fact blurring
can serve to maintain a polarity along with its power relations by making
it hard to see. For instance, it is blurring that allows certain binaries
to stand in for each other. Another kind of blurring allows a continual slippage
back to an essentializing notion of nature. In challenging the way binaries
operate to obscure understanding through different kinds of blurring and conflation,
it is critical to see the edges as opposed to naturalizing them.

Uncritical thinking

There are groups concerned with the development of critical thinking capacity
and the vital need for appropriate discernment [more
| more].

It continues to amaze me how brainwashed the American public is. Most people
have not taken the time to develop a consistent set of beliefs and principles
to guide their lives. Instead, they mindlessly repeat and believe a bunch
of illogical, contradictory platitudes. The anti-negativity mindset is perhaps
the stupidest of all. For one thing, it is virtually impossible to express
the sentiment without contradicting yourself. Let's look at the simplest formulation:
Negativity is bad. Whoa! Hold on there! Negativity is what? How negative!
Mere semantic games? If only it were so. Unfortunately, I cannot count the
number of times I have heard a valid criticism countered with a simple sentence
labeling the criticism as negativity. That's it. No counter-argument, no correction
of misrepresented facts, nothing. Just the statement that the criticism is
"negative" and the expectation that everyone will shake their heads in disappointment
and pay no more attention.

There are many ways of being negative. Most of the rational divergence we
encounter is antithetical. The terms antithetical, polar, oppositional, antagonistic
and factional, as used herein, refer to orientations that rely on opposition
for gaining and keeping the upper hand. Antithetical power maneuvers, in one
way or another, hinder the development of sound rational thinking. Antithetical
commitment supports the escalation of negative oriented philosophy. Negative
oriented philosophy encourages antithetical mentalities.

Delaney is however obliged to point out the difficulties affirmatively-oriented
people encounter in developing appropriate negative terminology. She asks:

How do we allay the dangers of negative development without sounding negative?
...This difficulty is significant. The words we need to refute the most serious
difficulties facing us today are elusive. We find it hard to talk about our
most pressing problems with the degree of intelligibility required because
we have to create a language before we address the problem

In partial response to this dilemma, a discipline and methodology, known as
appreciative inquiry, has
been developed as "an exciting new paradigm for human development and social
innovation. By asking positive questions, we can generate new images of the
future" [more].

Some of the subtlety in considering such matters is evident in Hegels's Science
of Logic [excerpts]

Even a slight experience in reflective thinking will make it apparent that
if something has been defined as positive and one moves forward from this
basis, then straightway the positive has secretly turned into a negative,
and conversely, the negatively determined into a positive, and that reflective
thinking gets confused and contradicts itself in these determinations. Unfamiliarity
with their nature imagines this confusion to be an error that ought not to
happen, and ascribes it to a subjective mistake. This transition also, in
fact, remains a mere confusion when there is no awareness of the necessity
of the transformation.

Cautions
were expressed there regarding the "positive
psychology movement", notably
by Julie K. Norem and Edward C. Chang (The
positive psychology of negative thinking, Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 58,
2002, pp. 993-1001) in the following terms:

As the positive psychology movement gains momentum, both within psychology
and in the broader culture, it becomes increasingly important to ensure that
the complexity of individual personality and psychological processes do not
get lost in a one-size-fits-all approach to improving human functioning. In
this article, we consider some of the ways that the costs and benefits of
different kinds of optimism and pessimism may vary across different individuals,
situations, and cultural contexts. We use defensive pessimism research to
illustrate that there are times when pessimism and negative thinking are indeed
positive psychology, as they lead to better performance and personal growth.
We also consider the ways in which dominant American culture - and research
in psychology - may underestimate some of the costs of optimism

A recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center shows that 85 percent
of Americans believe that they are very happy or at least happy....Surely
all this happiness can't be for real. How can so many people be happy
in the midst of all the problems that best our globe?....

I for one am afraid that our American culture's overemphasis on happiness
at the expense of sadness might be dangerous, a wanton forgetting of
an essential part of a full life. I further am wary in the face of thios
possibility: to desire only happiness is a world undoubtedly tragic is
to become inauthemtic, to settle for unrealistic abstractions that ignore
concrete situations. I am finally fearful over our society's efforts
to expunge melnacholia from the system. Without the agitations of the
soul, would all of our magnificently yearning towers topple? Would our
heart-torn symphonies cease?

Management challenge: positive vs negative

The above reflections are especially interesting in relation to efforts to
understand the nature of socio-economic sustainability on a planet of vulnerable
resources. What are the policy analogues to the Pa Kua practices necessary to
ensure that sustainability? Within this context the question is very significant
because these practices transcend contemporary political controversy by weaving
together into a cycle practices that are strongly advocated (as "positive")
by some constituencies or strongly opposed (as "negative") by others.

The challenge in managing any situation is to acquire skills in responding
appropriately to complex mixes of positive-negative situations. The manager
can call upon:

Consultants focused on the negative: namely, in response to a well-defined
problem, a specialist can be brought in and paid to "fix-it", as
with many technical problems in the use of computers. Here the challenge is
that the specialist may be far less sensitive to what does work and why, as
opposed to what does not work. But enthusiasm for new solutions may lead to
recommendations for unnecessary extensive changes to the system that may well
not take into account factors that ensure the system works. The fact that
fixing the "negative" problem is appreciated as a "positive"
outcome is an illustration of the interrelated complexities of positive and
negative in practice.

Consultants focused on the positive: the challenge here is that the
consultant is paid to focus on how to enhance the understanding and momentum
empowering people to move forward -- but without necessarily being able to
focus effectively on what does not work, or considering such a focus relevant.
Indeed advocating and empowering people to "be positive" may in
itself be appreciated as "positive", whether or not the "negative"
is ignored.

It is however the management challenge to reconcile such extreme perspectives
and to compensate for the factors that they do not respectively take adequately
into account.

The management challenge with regard to "positive" may therefore
perhaps be more usefully compared to that of a gardener. Typically particular
plants may need "more light" or "more shade", "wetter
soil" or "drier soil". The variety of plants and conditions have
to be appropriately interrelated in the concrete situation (notably as in the
discipline of permaculture). Issues
of management may therefore include, metaphorically:

when to encourage and appreciate an orchestra playing (on the sinking Titanic,
when disaster was inevitable), and when it is a distraction from concrete
action (Nero fiddling while Rome burns)

when to encourage the ability of those with skills to identify and fix "dirty"
problems (overflowing sewers, multiple gunshot wounds), and when to appreciate
the "prissy" unwillingness to "muck in"

when to acknowledge that there is a "problem" (as in the first
step in Alcoholics Anonymous: "I am an alcoholic"), and when to
focus on potential (irrespective of the problems)

The requisite perspective is then not to blindly favour "positive"
over "negative" but to understand when to favour one rather than the
other and how to sustain over time the cycle shifting between combinations of
"positive" and "negative". The practicalities of how to
do this with heat engines were basic to the miracle of the industrial revolution.
The challenge of how to design operational "value engines" and "axiological
pumps" remains.

Life-skills required for "self-management" call for analogous flexibility
in acquiring the grace and elegance associated with maturity in:

knowing when and how to lose, notably in order to develop...

knowing when and how to win

The dilemma is somewhat analogous to the choice offered between:

allopathic treatments using pharamacuetical products targetted to a specific
illness (that may only be a symptom), namely without addressing the lifestyle
issues that will tend to re-engender that problem

homeopathic treatment using products in the light of a whole-system perspective
that may not effectively address the immediate suffering

A Dangerous Association?

Commentary on social experience readily associates "positive" with "winners"
(even succesful aggressors) and "negative" with "losers" (and the submissive).
Such associations are easily further extended to leadership as "positive"
and followership as "negative". This sets up a highly problematic context
for the democratic resolution of many of the challenges of society -- especially
when the focus in placed on the "positive" value of leadership -- implicitly
categorizing those that are led as "negative". What possibilities are there
for successful "win-win" solutions for the multitudes of the world within
such a mindset?

Embracing error

One strategically appropriate response to the "negativity" of error
has been usefully articulated by Donald Michael ("On the requirement for embracing
error". In: On Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn, 1973):

"Changing towards long-range social planning requires that, instead of avoiding,
exposure to and acknowledgement of error, it is necessary to expect it, to
seek out its manifestation, and to use information derived from the failure
as the basis for learning through future societal experiment. Hare bluntly,
future-responsibility societal learning Makes it necessary for individuals
and organization to embrace error. It is the only way to ensure a shared self-consciousness
about limited theory as to the nature of social dynamics, about limited data
for testing theory, and hence about our limited ability to control our situation
well enough to expect to be successful more often than not".

Leadership and "negative capability"

A number of studies explore the relevance of a particular understanding of
negativity -- known as "negative capability" -- notably in organization
and management (W Bennis, On Becoming a Leader, 1998; Charles Handy,
The Age of Unreason, 1989). As originally articulated in 1817 by the
poet Keats, negative capability is described as:

...when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without
any irritable reaching after fact and reason [more]

Our aim in this article is to explore and explain the concept of 'negative
capability', in the context of the current resurgence of interest in organizational
leadership. We suggest that negative capability can create an intermediate
space that enables one to continue to think in difficult situations. Where
positive capability supports 'decisive action', negative capability supports
'reflective inaction', that is, the ability to resist dispersing into defensive
routines when leading at the limits of one's knowledge, resources and trust.
The development of negative capability is discussed but it is suggested that
its status is problematic in the context of a societal and organizational
culture dominated by control and performativity. The practice of negative
capability is illustrated throughout the article, using a case study of the
leadership of an international joint venture.

Relating to the unknown -- beyond denial

Beyond embracing error (as noted above), Donal Michael has endeavoured to clarify
the challenge of leadership in relation to denial (cf Leadership's shadow:
the dilemma of denial. In: Futures 26, 10, Dec 1994). In commenting
on that perspective in the same journal (The
Future of Leadership Reframing the unknown, 1994), a case was made for:

... the need to understand patterns of denial and affirmation as they affect
efforts at consensus formation. Leadership is presented as an interface role,
orchestrating the exposure to light and shadow, between that which can be
communicated (to followers) and that which cannot. The challenge for leadership
is portrayed as one of navigating through shifting patterns of affirmation
and denial. This challenge is represented in terms of four zones ranging from
simple consensus, through situations undermined by unwritten rules, to a zone
in which neither assertion nor denial is relevant. The latter is seen as more
typical of Eastern approaches to governance. It is argued that complementary
patterns of affirmation and denial are essential to the processes of sustainable
communities.

It is useful to contrast various approaches to knowledge about the unknown
in terms of a framework used by Peter
Koenig (30
Lies about Money, 2003) as follows:

.

Knowing

.

Not knowing

B:
Knowing what one does not know (as in a research situation exploring recognized
frontiers of knowledge)

A:
Knowing what one knows (as with the confident use of known technologies)

Knowing

D: Not
knowing what one does not know (an anxiety of those advocating the precautionary
principle with regard to impacts of innovations)

C: Not
knowing what one already knows (as with memory failure or a blindspot)

.

Not knowing

.

With regard to the four situations:

A: This is the straightforward condition in which a positive attitude may
be appropriate, given that surprises are not to be expected. There is no sense
that anything of relevance is not known. Collectively this may be associated
with the phenomenon of "group think" (as subsequently determined
to have been the attitude of the US intelligence community to Iraq).

B: Here there is an element of doubt, a somewhat negative condition associated
with an experimental approach. The need to be sensitive to what may not be
known is recognized, given that it may be associated with unexpected surprises
(whether positive or negative). The condition is associated with many games
-- before there outcome is known.

C: Here there is a (possibly temporary) failure to recognize or remember
what one already knows. In this negative condition of not knowing there is
a failure to connect with positive enabling knowledge. This may be associated
with a form of denial, as notably explored in the initial ambiguity of whistleblowers
(halfknowing, not knowing, not wanting to know) by Stanley Cohen (States
of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering, 2001). It might be
said to be typical of attitudes to global warming (cf Richard Register, Global
Warming and the Elephant in the Living Room, 2005) and to other issues
illustrated by that metaphor (notably population). It may also be associated
with age or social collapse. This condition might also be understood in terms
of what is known but "unsaid" in any social group (Global
Strategic Implications of the Unsaid: from myth-making towards a wisdom society,
2003). Thus some may indeed know what is unsaid, but others may have no knowledge
of it and may not suspect its existence. The latter condition relates to the
following.

D: In this case there is no knowledge or recognition of what is not known,
possibly because of lack of exposure to relevant experiences. The existence
of this condition, and the possibility of such ignorance, may also not be
recognized and may be effectively denied. The condition might be said to have
been recognized by the title of an article of Seymour Hersh (The
unknown unknowns of the Abu Ghraib scandal, Guardian, 21
May 2005).

The four conditions may be used to explore attitudes towards anomalous phenomena
-- whether variously denied as hallucinations, treated as unexplained possibilities,
or ignored as momentary glitches in instruments of data collection. The history
of recognition of environmental phenomena such as "acid rain" or "global
warming" -- or health risks of various cancerogenic substances -- could
also be explored as perceptions of these shifted between these four conditions
over time.

Of potentially great interest is the deliberate manipulation of "knowing/not
knowing" as described by Naomi Klein (The
true purpose of torture, Guardian, 14 May 2005):

This strategic leaking of information, combined with official denials, induces
a state of mind that Argentinians describe as "knowing/not knowing", a vestige
of their "dirty war".

What do I really know? Mystery and wonder are intertwined. What we think
we know becomes devoid of wonder, and a life without wonder becomes devoid
of richness, depth, and of the Way itself. This exercise is a return, through
enquiry, to the wonder of not-knowing.

Not-knowing is unlimited; knowledge is limited. Not-knowing is the ground
of mystery, the land of wonder; a haven to be visited daily. It is the source
of creativity, inventiveness, and tranquility all in one. Not-knowing is the
only place from which freshness can emerge. Of all the knowledge which you
consider "yours," how much is merely the leavings, the transfusions of others?
What have you truly learned on your own, through observation, intuition, enquiry?

Return to Not-knowing! Rest there a while. Expect nothing. Then emerge gently
to view the world with fresh eyes. This is meditation, rejuvenation, the source
of creativity all rolled into one.

In a classic commentary on Buddhist thought, Chogyam Trungpa (Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism, 1973) uses a metaphor to describe the functioning of the ego:

The Lord of Speech refers to the inclination on the part of ego to interpret anything that is threatening or irritating in such a way as to neutralize the threat or turn it into something "positive" from the ego's point of view. The Lord of Speech refers to the use of concepts as filters to screen us from a direct perception of what is. The concepts are taken too seriously; they are used as tools to solidify our world and ourselves. If a world of nameable things exists, then "I" as one of the nameable things exists as well. We wish not to leave any room for threatening doubt, uncertainty or confusion.

The challenge of the relationship between knowing and not-knowing is well expressed
by A H Almaas of the Ridhwan Foundation (2004):

This possibility of not-knowing thoroughly permeates our experience all the
time, in all possibilities and all situations. It is fundamental to our knowing
capacity. In fact, our basic knowing capacity begins by not-knowing. How can
you be knowing, if you don't first not know? We tend to be scared of not-knowing;
we are unable to see that it is the pervasive ground of our knowledge. Not-knowing,
in some sense, is where we live all the time. Every piece of knowledge is
situated in not-knowing. It is the space where all knowledge is. So we can
say that basic knowingness is the field of not-knowing, which can manifest
forms within itself that this knowingness recognizes. [more]

A talk by Master Sheng-yen (Not
Knowing is Knowing, 1993), quotes Niu-t'ou Fa-Jung (From the Song
of Mind, 594-657 AD):

Knowing dharmas is not knowing. Not knowing is knowing the essential...

The highest principle cannot be explained: It is neither free nor bound.
Lively and attuned to everything It is always right before you.

Dangerous consequences of ignoring the cycle

Exhortations to "be positive" may well say more about the enjoiner
than about the person to whom the directive is addressed. However the trap of
dependence on a positive framework is likely to conform to the adage of policy
scientist Geoffrey Vickers: A trap is a function of the nature of the trapped
(Freedom in a Rocking Boat, 1972).

The challenge of being positive, whilst avoiding any negative information as
misguided (or even dangerously dysfunctional), can be viewed in terms of the
lessons of the RMS Titanic. It was the captain, the designer and the builder
who epitomized a positive attitude -- resistant to any information to the contrary
(as with the NASA and Thai examples). This is similar to the strategies of many
in response to the challenges they face, whether individually or collectively.

Under such circumstances on the Titanic, calls for "positive action"
might well be analogous to supporting rearrangement of the deck chairs -- a
sense of positive engagement that might be compared to the person in search
of car keys at night, under the convenient street light where they had not
been lost.

In terms of the so-called "clash of civilizations" and cultures,
the tendency of western cultures to endeavour to deal only in the "positive"
will make them increasing vulnerable. Other cultures, notably in Asia, have
a much more sophisticated ability to deal in subtle combinations of "positive"
and "negative". This will give them an increasing strategic advantage.
Such strategic consequences were first explored with respect to the outcome
of the Vietnam War by Scott Boorman (The
Protracted Game: A Wei-ch'i Interpretation of Maoist Revolutionary Strategy,
1969). Boorman noted the American dependence on chess logic in comparison with
Maoist exploitation of the logic of the eastern game of go. Susantha
Goonatilake (Toward a Global Science: mining civilizational knowledge,
1999) has articulated this emerging comparative advantage in the field of scientific
innovation, stressing that eastern cultures make use of much richer metaphors.

Truth is relative to the perspective of the observer, and the nature of the
perception of reality will determine the nature of the truth expressed. In
this presentation I want to explore the relationships between opposed world
views and how these oppositional perspectives will determine the nature of
truths held. Most models used to describe relationships create an exclusive
domain that exteriorises that which is outside or marginalised by the structure.

The Klein bottle is one structure that creates no exclusive domain as it
is a modality that, through a structural twist, unifies the inside and outside
surfaces into a continuous surface. Through the use of such a structure, seemingly
opposed perspectives can be illustrated as aspects of the whole where seemingly
paradoxical environments necessitate a decisive shift from an "either / or"
critique to a pluralistic "and / both" scenario. This structure allows for
the relativity of truths to be realised as expressions that are inextricably
linked to relative world views, and therefore creates a focus for a holistic
approach to information generation.

Whereas Purcell has focused on understanding topological manipulation of the
lines used to represent yin and yang, and the associated classic symbolism (notably
of a pelican pecking
at its breast), the symbol of the Tao above can itself be understood as
a two-dimensional representation of a Klein bottle (and as a stylized approximation
to that of the pelican):

the small black circle (within the white zone) is to be understood as reduced
to a "cognitive singularity" through which the black surface is
to be seen and by which access to it is obtained

the small white circle (within the black zone) is to be understood as reduced
to a "cognitive singularity" through which the white surface is
to be seen and by which access to it is obtained

effectively these two circles are the same singularity seen from
the different surfaces, one "inside" and one "outside"
the higher dimension Klein bottle

the white and black surfaces are then continuous through the "cognitive
singularity", such that there are not two surfaces but a single surface
that is readily seen as of two kinds, depending on from which side of the
singularity the surfaces are viewed.

Purcell clarifies the relationship of the Klein bottle to the more readily
understood Möbius strip.
A Klein bottle can be produced by gluing two Möbius strips together along their
edges; this cannot be done in ordinary three-dimensional Euclidean space without
creating self-intersections. The symbol of the Tao might then be usefully be
understood as a Klein bottle as represented by Picasso!

... the whole secret is in knowing the vessel. It must be thick so its boiling
contents won't get away (projection, symptoms, psychosis). It most focus its
heat on its center, aided by reflux condensers and the retort called the pelican,
in which the distillate runs back into the belly. Put psychologically: in
the sturdy vessel of an ego purged of personal issues, the contained nonego
self can undergo transformation.

The concept of singularity features notably as a gravitational
singularity in astrophysical models based on general relativity that predict
a point of infinite space-time curvature. The term is closely related to the
mathematical meaning of "singularity". The Big
Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a gravitational singularity
at the start of time.

A cognitive singularity is indeed understood to be associated with the technological
singularity in the development of a civilization. This has now been predicted
as the point at which technological progress accelerates beyond the ability
of present-day humans to fully comprehend or predict. This prognosis is based
on statistical data showing the exponential acceleration of various trends in
human civilization.

Computational singularities occur when a mode of simulation/computation
used by any discrete adaptive physical system undergoes an irreversible change,
a type of phase transition to a new regime. Solitary insects simulate their
external world in a particular way. Social insects (such as bees, ants or
termites) add a whole new layer of simulation complexity. The shift in reference
frame between these two simulation systems represents a computational singularity.
Each operates in a relatively discrete computational domain and organisms
in one domain (say, an ant or a chimpanzee) cannot understand certain simulations
occurring in another's domain once the latter's simulation system has become
sufficiently quantitatively or qualitatively different. Also known as "cognitive"
singularities, these play an important role in understanding the coming technological
singularity.

When we learn to model accelerating change as disruptive only on some scales,
and continuous on others, when we realize that the technological singularity
will represent only a partial cognitive singularity for human actors, then
we can use the benefit of history to understand the constrained trajectory
of the financial market as a complex system. In this light, perhaps the easiest
way to forsee why the markets which presently exist to solve human problems
will not be destroyed once technology has surpassed unmodified humanity is
to examine the record of computational technology's effect on society to date,
as we have briefly done above.

The thesis is put forward that aesthetic experience and hermeneutic experience
coincide in the epistemological access to the sensuous and also in the coincidence
of subjectivity and objectivity, activity and passivity. Dynamic reciprocity
is defined as constitutive for aesthetic perception and is associated with
a substantial transformation of what is perceived as well as of the self-reflection
of the perceiver. Seeing appears as the production of an (image) object which,
in its transforming character, recalls the alchemistic quintessence. The hermetic
art of alchemy ("solve et coagula") translates, in a metaphorical sense,
the productivity of perception into the language of objectivity. The hermetic-aesthetic
polarity of the epistemological structure is demarcated in its cognitive singularity
by means of Heinrich Rombach's "image philosophy" vis-à-vis Gadamer's
ideal of knowledge, which is oriented towards understanding.

The transition through the singularity may also be explored as an epistemological
singularity. The challenge is to embed experiential insights regarding singularities
into the possibilities envisaged by mathematics, notably John Wheeler's Geometrodynamics,
which theorizes how black holes in time-space geometry could actually become
"worm-holes" into another quadrant of that same geometry (universe), or "white
holes" into a potentially infinite number of parallel time-space geometries
(universes). For example, Martin Rosenberg (Contingency,
Liberation and the Seducation of Geometry: hypertext as an avant-garde medium,

John Wheeler addresses black holes, which are anomalies in the time-space
geometry of Einstein and Minkowski. Now most conceptions of black holes sees
them as points of infinite density, as singularities with infinite gravitational
pull that distort the time-space geometry in their environs. Wheeler theorizes
that these black holes may also indicate not just a point of singularity,
but a portal, a vortex that may serve as a node through which matter may enter
and, in some mysterious way, exit. This portal enables two possiblities: first,
a black hole may become a "wormhole" that allows jumps from one place, through
a "hyperspace," to another location in the same geometrical grid; second,
and more interesting, a black hole may have a reverse function, so that mathematical
representations of "white holes" have been developed to describe how matter
emerges from out of a node in space-time geometry. This theory evolved even
to the point of postulating that a black hole may function as a white hole
emerging in a parallel universe. In this extension of General Relativity,
there could be any number of parallel universes connected by any number of
gravitational anomalies in their respective time-space geometries.

Autopoietic systems

Autopoiesis is the process
whereby an organization, understood as a unity (such as a cell, an organism,
and even a corporation), produces itself. An autopoietic organization is an
autonomous and self-maintaining unity which contains component-producing processes.
The components, through their interaction, generate recursively the same network
of processes which produced them. An autopoietic system is operationally closed
and structurally state determined with no apparent inputs and outputs. The space
defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by
using dimensions that define another space. It is the through the review of
such systems that richer understandings of the role played by "positive"
and "negative" may be obtained.

... an endless information machine. Strange attractors seem to play this
role. Such an perpetual information machine might take the form of information
moving around a Mobius strip.... In other words such systems expand spreading
their order from a singularity toward their boundary at which conversion of
the environmental order occurs. It is as if there were a flow of information
from singularity to boundary which was self-perpetuating which feeds off of
the disordering of the environment. Overall positive entropy imbalance is
maintained but locally there is negative entropy. The surface of the boundary
between the positively entropic and the negatively entropic is similar to
the non-orientable surface of the Mobius strip. It has similar strange properties.
It allows a reflection of the ordering back to the singularity at the core
of the dissipative special system in such a way that the waterfall of ordering
gives rise to itself continually. There is the same strange disparity between
the global appearance of positive entropy increase and the local eddies of
negative entropy that make up the dissipative ordering special system.

These unusual topological forms, according to Palmer, then provide insights
into autopoietic systems:

The Nekker Cube and
the Kleinian bottle together give us a picture of the autopoietic symbiotic
special system. Like the Kleinian bottle it is made by conjuncting two lower
level Mobius strips. It appears as a symbiosis of these two lower level systems
at the structural level and thus it is like the Nekker cube, each dissipative
special system pops out as the figure on the ground of the other dissipative
special system and we cannot hold the two in a stable formation perceptually.
This is because at the organizational level they have fused completely into
a higher order nonorientiable anomalous form. The Kleinian bottle like the
autopoietic system has the appearance of a closed system which is yet open
to interference from the environment.

The Unconscious Civilization

Fabulation in all of us suggests a fear of reality. A weakness for
ideology. A need to believe in single-stroke, cure-all solutions... All
of which translates into a debilitating passivity when faced by crises.
This suggests that we have difficulty pereciving our own weaknesses...
If we are unable to to identify reality and therefore unable to act upon
what we see, then we are not simply childish but have reduced ourselves
to figures of fun -- ridiculous victims of our unconscious....

But the confronting of reality usually is a negative process. It
is ideology that insists upon relentless positivism. That's why it opposes
criticism and encourages passivity. I would argue that confronting reality
-- no matter how negative and depressing the process -- is the first
step towards coming to terms with it... John Ralston Saul, 1995